ernest_purdum

The Vede Mecum shows it as being a modified Tessar type, using lanthanum glass, introduced in 1968. The focal lengths for LF use were from 105 to 210. The working angle of these lenses was given as 55 degrees which in the 210mm size gave an image circle of 261mm. That would give a useful range of movements on 4X5. There were also smaller lenses of the same name, and a 127mm made only for Polaroid.

Many of the most technically interesting cameras are British. Some examples are just about anything Newman & Guardia ever made, the Peckham-Wray, a very large cousin of the Periflex since it also had reflex focusing but not viewing, the K.I. Monobar 35mm view camera, the Sinclair front shutter SLR, and very many others. Sanderson was the first view camera designer to supply really flexible movements. Adams cameras are magnificent displays of craftsmanship. Today's field camera designs can be traced right back to British patterns developed between about 1885 and 1905. I could go on at great length.

I can't tell you anything about the lens design, but you can find out something about it yourself. Take a small light, a pen style flashlight being ideal, close the diaphragm all the way and look into the front of the lens while slowly moving the light above it. I'm guessing that you will see four reflections or pairs of reflections. They will move in opposite directions as you move the light. Now turn the lens over. Compare the reflections you now see with those from the front. Again, as a guess, you may see only two strong reflections and perhaps a much fainter one. The movements will be quite different from those of the front. If my guesses are correct, you are looking at an asymmetric design with two separated pieces of glass in the front and one or more elements cemented together in the rear. If, in the rear, you were able to see a faint reflection, that indicates a Tessar design. If you saw only the two strong reflections, the lens could still be a Tessar type, because cemented surfaces don't always show up well. Otherwise, it would be a Triplet. (The Tessar is often considered a Triplet derivative, and listed amongst triplet types, which can cause confusion.) Two faint reflections would indicate a five element lens still related to the Tessar. If, on the other hand, The reflections were the same front and back, the lens is symmetrical. This is less likely though, because most symmetricals are of smaller aperture even now, and more so earlier.

P.S. The *8 14 and 18" are the focal lengths, 8" combined, and then each cell by itself.

You apparently have a triple convertible lens, probably a Rapid Rectilinear type, with front and rear cells of different sizes. You can use the two together or either one by itself. To use the big one, which should be on the front when both are in use, you take off the smaller one and put the big one in its place. The three scales give you the apertures for each of the three configuations.

 

Give it a try. You will probably find the results at least interesting.

I'd need a lot more to go on to tell you much, but I can tell you a little. I know of Laack as a lens maker. They lasted longer than you are indicating, being still active through the 1930's. There were apparently very few cameras under their name, and I suspect the cameras were actually made by someone else, not an uncommon arrangement. They made many lenses and Pololyt was one of their common names. Does the name Laack appear on the camera body, or only on the lens?

 

The "D.R.P." after Ibsor means German patent. The shutter doesn't help in dating, since they were made without change for many years.

 

The series f4.5, f6.3, and so on, is the "Continental" series of f stops. It was used by European makers for many years. It works just like other f stops, each number requiring twice the exposure of the one preceding.

 

If you can provide a picture of the camera, or a more detailed description, someone may be able to tell you more about it. Are you sure it is a 4X5 and not a 9X12cm? If it is actually a 4X5 it was probably made either in, or for export to, the United States, or possibly some other country outside continental Europe.

The shutter isn't all that amazing. It is a pneumatic type, the little cylinder at the top being the controlling device. As compared to clockwork shutters, these are very simple, with consequent reliability. When required, pneumatic shutters usually respond well to cleaning.

The 16 1/2" Dagor was number 7a. It covered 11X14 at full aperture, 13X17 at f16, and 21X25 at f64. It was an expensive piece of glass. In 1904, it was priced at $182.00, when the 6" size was only $45.00. The range of Dagor focal lengths then ran from 1 5/8" (#0000) all the way to 35" (#11).

 

I would guess that there are few of these in a shutter.

Aside from portability, there aren't too many problems involved. I'm not sure what focus issue you have in mind. Although some process cameras had an automatic function similar to that of some old enlargers, most focused like normal view cameras. I assume that you have horizontal cameras in mind. Changing one of the vertical cameras to horizontal use could involve major modification of the camera's structure.

 

Process cameras are made to copy flat subjects, so have no tilt or swing movements. Adding them would differ from one camera to another, but in each cse would require considerable ingenuity and work.

 

Horizontal cameras were intended for use with long lenses. The minimum bellows extension is usually very long.

 

The back of most process cameras differs substantially from the usual type. Vacuum is used to hold the film flat. Working out how to load film in daylight and keep it flat could be your biggest obstacle.

There were several aperture numbering systems that do not correspond to the current f stop markings. If your camera has an American lens, the markings are most likely in the "Uniform System", abbreviated U.S., and meaning that exposure needed to be increased in proportion to the aperture number. It was advocated by the Royal Photographic Society and Kodak was the most prominent user. As mentioned above, U.S.16 and f16 are the same, good to remember. Your lens is probably a Rapid Rectilinear with a maximum marked aperture of U.S.4. This is f8. U.S.8 = f11, U.S.16 = f16, U.S.32 = f22, U.S.64 = f32, U.S.128 = f45.

 

Several makers had their own system, most notably Goerz and Zeiss. If your camera has one of these, let me know and I will translate it for you.

 

The system also mentioned above which has numbers like f4.5, f6.3 and f9 is the "Continental" series. These are "f" numbers, but based the square root of 2.2, whereas the modern system is based on the root of 2. Notice that the maximum opening of many lenses corresponds to one of the Continental system markings.

 

Some diaphragms, mostly for convertible lens sets, are just marked in millimeters, so you have to use a table to find out the f number. The table usually gets lost, creating a major problem for later owners.

If you can find a normal 8x10 back in good condition, any woodworker can fairly easily adapt it to fit a B&J, whether the back maker was Gundlach, F&S, Seneca or whoever. Thin sheets of wood for this purpose can be obtained form www.micromark.com or sometimes at a local model shop.

 

You might find that a B&J back wouldn't necessarily fit correctly without resetting the pins. My recollection is that when B&J provided backs separately, the pins were sent loose.

Just as bubbles occur in some thick syrup mixture being stirred, so it is natural for bubbles to occur when the thick syrup-like mixture wehich is molten optical glass is being stirred. Optical glass is a mixture of various substances and has to be stirred for the components to become evenly distributed. Until rather recent years, the presence of bubbles in glass was to be expected. Optically, all that a bubble does is block a trivial amount of light. Progress in glass manufacture has now made the production of lenses without bubbles feasible, but the improvement is basically cosmetic. Your lens is small and you are seeing small bubbles. In a large lens, you might see much larger bubbles, but in neither case are they anything to be concerned about.

Your selection of a lens may be harder than choosing the camera components. Many of the traditonal portrait lenses of large aperture as well as long length are too heavy for anything but one of the old "studio" cameras. Later designs may be of quite restricted aperture so as to fit into the smaller shutters now available. Another factor may be the available distance from lens to subject, which might constrain the focal length youare able to use.

I recently aold a 6X9 Prwessman that had been converted to take rollfilm backs. The groundglass had been discarded and Graflok type locking slides added. There is no modification needed where the front of the film holder mounts, you just have to be careful that the slides grip the holder properly. It's best if they angle inward sso that they get tighter as they slide over.

 

This leaves you without a groundglass. You can make one from an (obsolete) film pack holder. The glass will probably need to be shimmed back the thickness of the metal around the edges of a film pack.

 

You can probably still see the one I sold on eBay by going to advnced search and searching closed items for modified Busch.

 

This may have been a common modification at one time. I hava a Burke & James which has been operated on in the same way. This one appears to be a very professional job using actual Graflok parts.

The formats can't be compared with accuracy, since they are not the same shape. Here, however, are the available lens sizes closest to 35mm equivalents:

 

35mm 4" X 5" 5" X 7"

 

24mm = 75mm 120mm

35mm = 120mm 165mm

70mm = 240mm 300mm

 

For macro work, I'd forget all about the above, and choose a lens based on the magnification I wanted, and the maximum bellows extension of my camera. Example: I want 5X magnification and my bellows extends to 400mm. 5X requires 6 focal lengths extension. 400/6 = 66mm, so a lens of 50mm or slightly longer would be appropriate. At that lens to film distance, coverage would be no problem on either format.

 

The Polaroid MP-4 lenses and their shutters can be obtained at very small expense, and offer an easy way to get started in macro work.

The Schneider listing I have shows a number 5 shutter for the Tele-Xenar f5.5/500. Unless the Compound is really worn out or broken, it would probably respond well to a CLA.

Oops! Where did that "e" in "wwew" come from? You could also search by "700 pages", I think.

Search eBay for seller wwew.antiquecameras.net. I just bought one at $19.00.

He is sometimes on the forum as CP Goerz

Does your Super D have a Graflok, or a Graflex, back? If the latter, which as I recall some early Super D's did, the Grafmatic may not be seating right. I'd more likely suspect this would cause an horrendous light leak in addition to a focus problem, but I've learned that the expected doesn't always happen.

 

An eye exam at 32 isn't a bad idea. Cheap insurance against some awful problems. I doubt, though that your focus problem has anything to do with your eyes.

This question takes me way back. I used to feel comfortable shooting at rather slow speed with a Graflex SLR. With a large eye-level camera I would have been more concerned about possible camera shake.

This question takes me back very many years. I used to feel comfortable shooting at rather low shutter speeds with a Graflex SLR. With a large camera held at eye level, I would have been more concerned about possible shake.

I'll let others more qualified comment on the camera except to say tha since Cambo cameras are modular, future limitations would not be severe.

 

Regarding the lens, though, I strongly suggest the 360mm. I think you would find it very frustrating to have a camera with good movement capability, but with a lens which would prevent much use of them.

Are both of them coated? The Wollensak has eight air to glass surfaces, so coating is particularly important. The Angulon has only four, but the consensus seems to be that the older uncoated Angulons were not as good as the later ones. If you know the serial number, www.schneideroptics.com will translate it to a manufacturing year. After 1950 should be safe, but the later, the better. A coated Wollensak will have a "W" inside a "C" amongst the markings.

 

Regarding coverage, I doubt if you would notice much significant difference. Both will cover 4" X 5", but neither gives you much excess coverage for your movements. The Angulon, I think, is a little better regarding light fall-off at the edges.

John, take a look at an earlier thread, "Wollensack Raptor" dated 2003-08-28